Richard Jones” (clearly a parody of 1980s pop culture icon Indiana Jones), an ex archeologist and adventurer turned English teacher IN SUPPORT of the argument that Web2.0 / Google IS making us “stupid.” Although I’m still not entirely sure where my initial idea to model Richard Jones’s (MY) persona after Indiana Jones’s came from, my best educated guess is that this particular character afforded me a way to creatively articulate my purpose - arguing that the Web2.0 / Google tools that teachers AND students drool over are strikingly similar to the beautiful, but DEADLY, golden booby trap Indy encounters in his search for the Holy Grail!To continue to build Richard Jones’s persona and further creatively articulate my purpose, I embedded an image of Indiana Jones in stereotypical college professor attire. I then designed the bellow back story which extends via parody the ridiculous challenges and booby traps that Jones encountered throughout his adventures to yet another quest; the search for THE pedagogical Holy Grail. But, like the individual Jones witnessed suffer a horrible fate via the deception of the beautiful golden grail, Jones argues that Web2.0 / Google are one in the same in the educational context; glamorous trinkets that are DEADLY to our capacity to learn! As such, Jones reminds the reader not to forget about the not so glamorous, but tried and true, instructional methods.
----------------------------------------
Occupation: Former Archeologist, Current English Teacher.
Issue Position: Pro - Web2.0 Technologies and Google ARE making us stupid
Since I've started my quest for the educator's Holy Grail as an English teacher at Simley High School in 1989, I have experienced my fair share of pedagogical booby traps along the way. As my students and I have risked life and limb dodging boulders, snake-filled pits of despair, and Nazis, yes, Nazis, I have yet to discover THE pedagogy that leads us to the object of our desires; Knowledge.
And as if it were magic, many of my fellow educators hail Web2.0 tools and Google as a sort of pedagogical Philosopher's Stone capable of instantly transporting teachers and learners out of the darkness of Stupidity, and into the light of Knowledge. Feh! In my experience, I have learned never, and I repeat NEVER, drink from the golden cup!
I feel as though Web2.0 tools and Google are just that - a fanciful solution that looks too good to be true, and probably is! As educators and students succumb to the surface level beauty of this golden trinket, they are neglecting to consider and incorporate pedagogies that are not quite as pretty, but have withstood the test of time. And believe me when I tell you that this is a grave, grave mistake! Don't believe me? See for yourself!
----------------------------------------
To support Jones’s arguments, I primarily relied on the article from the Atlantic which primarily favored the pro side of the issue; that Web2.0 / Google IS making us stupid. Within this article, I anchored on to what I perceived as author Nick Carr’s primary thesis (that Web2.0 / Google is “chipping away” at our capacity to maintain a state of deep, focused concentration while reading), citing excerpts from Carr’s text as Jones’s main evidence. From there, I continued to search for additional sources supporting Carr’s primary thesis that Web2.0 / Google are DESTROYING our ability to concentrate (e.g., some short articles on text messaging), gradually nuancing and extending Jones’s original argument from Web2.0 / Google just influencing concentration capacity in reading, to writing, speaking, and overall human communication. Overall, I feel as though this evidence and argumentative strategy were relatively effective / successful as I witnessed a number of the other role-players support, as well as further nuance Jones’s original discussion thread. For example, in response to Jones’s questioning the intentions of the Google Corporations, Kyle Krowten (who was an original rival of Jones, I might add) contributes yet another dimension to Jones’s argument; information security:
“Old teacher dude may have a point here. According to a blog I follow (at the beacon of deep-thought news, USA Today), google can track you all over the web. They even search your gmails. Would you want someone listening to your phone calls, and then calling you to try to sell you stuff you were just talking about? No way, dude!”
Although I found the online role-play extremely engaging and informative, it was not without its struggles. For example, when I checked the Ning on the night BEFORE our group chat, there where at MOST 1 dozen posts. Then, the forum literally EXPLODED on the day of the chat. I’m talking well over 100 posts here. Although it was super motivating to see everybody commenting on jumping in, I literally had absolutely NO idea where to start during my next visit to the Ning. But, I argue that I had more power over the discussion as I was one of the first posters to the discussion way ahead of time on Sunday night, 2 days before the group chat. As such, I at least feel as though I much more concretely staked my place in the discussion, and it was much, much easier for me to later return to my thread following the absolute EXPLOSION of posts. In short, I feel as though the folks that might not have had the chance to get an early start with the activity might not have been able to exert the same power over the discussion as it was more difficult to navigate the increasingly cluttered environment (both in terms of the sheer number of posts, as well as the myriad of ideas flying every which way!)
As opposed to what I noticed some students discussing in the group chat, I am not entirely for or against the issue orientation that I took in this online role-play. Although I am absolutely intrigued by the instructional implications that Web2.0 / Google afford, I am also highly skeptical of them. In other words, there is a certain part of me that 1.) is a loyalist to print and print-based literacies, 2.) thinks that students should learn Shakespeare JUST BECAUSE IT’S SHAKESPEARE, 3.) thinks that text messaging is ruing the English language, and so on. As such, I used this activity as a chance to pursue this skepticism toward Web2.0 / Google – a skepticism I that I am rarely encouraged to exercise / explore as many of the classes I have taken focus on and hail the positive vs. potentially negative educational implications of Web2.0 / Google! Although I wouldn’t necessarily say my core beliefs following this activity have changed, I do feel as though I can now utilize Web2.0 / Google technologies with a healthy degree of skepticism, and not necessarily hail them as pedagogical Holy Grails.
----------------------------------------
FUTURE TEACHING IMPLICATIONS
In my future teaching practice, I anticipate the online role-play to be an extremely useful activity when paired with texts that contain characters that exert TREMENDOUS power over their textual worlds, but are given very little character development themselves. For example, when considering Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, the members of Tom Robinson’s jury are extremely underdeveloped characters (the reader learns next to nothing about them other than that they were selected for the jury), but they hold EXTREME power of Tom Robinson's fate. In an online role-play activity, I believe that it would be extremely beneficial for students to take one of these otherwise underdeveloped characters and develop them into something greater. For example, students could give these characters basic biographical information, as well as information more pertinent to essential unit questions such as: In light of the testimony of Atticus Finch, WHY / HOW did the jury find Tom Robinson Guilty?
Also, I feel as though the online role-play would be an extremely useful means to engage students with general "hot button" issues and debate, while teaching them argumentative and collaborative skills in the process. For example, students could select a micro or macro issue that they genuinely care about (e.g., should "Senior Skip Day" be a punishable offense? Should the U.S. government switch to universal health care?), and then select / be assigned diverse roles to explore and / or debate this issue. Overall, I feel as though the online role-play encourages much more universal student engagement, as well as authentic responses, as students who would otherwise perceive a similar face-to-face activity as threatening could remain relatively anonymous throughout the online role-play.
Thoughts?
IMAGES USED
http://www.principalspage.com/theblog/wp-content/uploads//2008/03/indiana-jones.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment